Photokina 2016: Hands on with Sigma's latest lenses

Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG HSM Art

Sigma is showing off its latest lenses, including the long-anticipated 85mm F1.4 addition to its Art range of high-quality optics. This means five Art F1.4 primes are now available in the 20 - 85mm range.

Comments

I like how they point out Nikon is using "electronic aperture control" like it's a new thing. You could say, "the Nikon mount will do what canon invented 29 years ago, and what all canon AF lenses have had for the last 29 years".

For the buy a Sony 85mm debate id imagine price is the only deciding factor, but these lenses do look maaasive, and also Sony E mount is far from dead, more people will buy the A7S then a 5D4 for video like me, got lots of Canon lenses that fit the E mount with an adapter too, the Sony A mount however is dying but nobody informed Sony yet,,

That 85mm 1.4 looks monstrous in size! It seems to be bigger than the Nikon 85mm 1.4G. Probably due to more glass, more optical sophistication? I really look forward to seeing a review, hopefully soon.

Neat, sweet, petite. In all the time I worked in the photo industry, this is the only case I can recall where a company just decided to make much better products and somehow, it just happened--like throwing a switch.

Need an advice - for the 5dsr should I get the Sigma 85 1.4 or the stabilized Tamron 1.8? I feel the stabilization is more helpful on a high-res sensor than 1/2 of a stop assuming my subjects are still? I have the Otus 85 and the Canon 85 1.2L II, the first one is a pain in the butt to use on anything except of a mirrorless with EVF, the second one is somewhat soft and very slow AF (but quality of the bokeh is amazing). Thanks.

I've tried the Tamron and it is a very, very good lens, marginaly better made than my Sigma 35mm, it also focuses better out of the box. Howverer once you spend an hour or so finetuning the Sig with the dock it rocks. Also my Sigma 35mm is sharper than the 35mm Tamron and the bokeh is a little softer, nicer. i also prefer the color rendition although this can be fixed in post. I guess with the 85s it will be the same. the stabilizytion on the later is a very nice add on, however it depends of the kind of photography you are after. I normally use HSS and / or never really shoot portraits in very dark conditions (if I do its always in a controlled environment). We are still to see what the Sigma can deliver but I bet it will surpass the Tamron by a tad.

Closing the Sigma 85mm is made in Japan while the Tamron is "designed" in Japan. That still matters to me.

Well Mart1234, that's an objective point of view (as you clearly stated). Some people love 35mm, 50mm, 85mm (I do all the pre-mentioned as I can still incorporate a few environmental elements). Others like 105mm, 135mm and / or 200mm and beyond. A stabilized 85mm will be more suitable for low light situations without an external source. As i said, it's up to the usage. DOF is very good with a 85mm f1.4 we don't agree on that one. For me 85mm is still a sweet spot.

You said a longer lens to get max. backgrounfd blur... there is not much difference between a 85mm f1.4 and a 70-200 f2.8 unless you mean a 300mm f2...

I meant a longer lens generally gives deeper dof (with the same amount of blur), and that makes it easier to focus. But another focal length may not be an option in this case, so perhaps my idea does not make sense. Yes I was thinking about a 300 :-)

Thank you guys for the replies. I don't need something exceptional, the only requirement is to have a fast and accurate AF in a relatively small short telephoto package. I just realized we don't know anything about how fast is the Sigma's AF, and also I've heard some complaints about Sigma's accuracy. So most likely I will go with the Tamron.The reason why I need such a lens may look quite silly. I got a 1dx2 to shoot action, and after playing with it a few days I realized it's a great walk-around camera in spite of its size/proportions (the weight is not a problem). My to-go lens is 70-200 II, but because of the 1dx2 has a vertical grip, the whole system is very clunky and unbalanced to carry. I tried the 85 f/1.2, but the AF is simply not good for action. And of course the Otus is "the king of fast _AF_" LOL.

I totally agree. This is maybe why so many are switching to Fuji or olympus. In fact with f1.8 on FF , you so not need to have a f1.4 lens which was required 10 years ago when sensors were so so in high isos or low light. Technical performance is one thing, another thing is carrying several kilos of lenses, most of the time in places when big stuff makes you a potential thief victim....

This is because it is needed to get the most out of the current and future high-MP sensors. The more simple lens designs don't cut it anymore. If you want super sharp images in a smaller package you've gotten move to a smaller sensor size.

The main reason for making huge 85/1.4 is that the optimal sharpness IS at F1.4. If the optimal sharpness had been at F2.8, then it could be much smaller. And if it was at F4.0, then it could be just as small as older ones, and still sharper than the older ones. And much cheaper.

And most high IQ images are actually taken at F4.0 or smaller aperture, because the shallow DOF at F1.4 effectively hides the sharpness for non flat surfaces.

I have wondered this too, especially with regard to the length of recently updated primes. With this new Sigma 85mm f/1.4, its length exceeds the lens it replaces by approximately 1.5 inches, or nearly 4 cm (another example...the Canon 35mm f/1.4L II is approximately .75 inches, or 2 cm, longer than the lens it replaced). I'm not sure, but I suspect that as sensors become more dense with photosites in the never-ending resolution race, this approach might be necessary to address angle of incidence issues with shorter lenses whose shallow ray angle on the outer parts of the sensor create problems with diffraction. If, and this is an assumption on my part, by lengthening the lens this also means that the optical center of the lens moves further away from the sensor, then the angle of incidence would be steeper as it struck the photosites and be less likely to cause diffraction. Given current sensor developments, I don't see lenses (especially fast ones) getting smaller any time soon.

Yes, a long lens might be more tele centric, which is an advantage for digital sensors. But ... an 85 mm lens is already kind of tele centric. So ... I do not know if that is important.

But ... it is like this. For every lens there is a sharpness curve as a function of the aperture. An expensive, large, extremely good F1.4 one has a maximum at F1.4, so it will only get less sharp when stopping down.

What happens when the lenses gets cheaper (and smaller) is that the maximum will go down to smaller apertures. Below the maximum the lens is just as good as the more expensive ones. Above the maximum it is worse than the more expensive ones.

This means, that if you almost always use F4.0 or smaller aperture, you can save lots of money. You will then not gain anything at all by getting a super expensive and large lens.

@Diablo - take a look at the existing 50 mm lenses. Yes, the maximum aperture affects the size. But, there are quite small F1.4 lenses.

The thing that makes the modern monster lenses very large is that the designers have decided that all parameters shall be super good at F1.4. It shall be razor sharp (all over the image). It shall have no distortion. It shall have no chromatic aberration. etc, etc ... and that at F1.4. Then, the lens becomes super large and expensive.

I think you can, with modern methods, make a 50/1.4 that is not much larger than a legacy F/1.4 and still get stellar performance at F/2.0. This lens would be much more interesting. At least for me.

I am assuming all the comments on the size of the 500 F:4 come from people, including the journalist reporting,who have never held a 500 F:4The sigma specs are about 700g lighter than the previous generation Nikon and only 200g heavier than the newest FL version that has been held up high for its dramatic weight reduction. Sigma just delivered 75% of the weight reduction and cut the price in half versus Nikon. Obviously optical performance is paramount but at least on paper they are setting up to disturb Nikon and canon's complete dominance of that market space.

This exciting news for Nikon owners getting screwed on price of superteles. Hopefully Sigma quickly follows up with 300/400 f/2.8, 600 f/4 800 f/5.6 all at about half the Nikon's crazy prices, except the 800 which will be about 1/3rd the price.

The 12-24 is very interesting! I might consider it to replace my 16-35 L II for my go to landscape lens if it can get close to the canon 11-24's quality, but I am still a bit considered about the rumors that the previous Art lens suffer from a rather sub par alignment QC, and the focus consistency considering the price tag is above the 16-35 F4

The 16-35 L II was 6 years old already which was the best choice back then, the quality jump in the 4is alone doesn't justify the price I have to sell and buy a new lens... But this sigma, with the 12mm option might go

I want some macro pictures of the lint on an office chair from a 500m f4 Richard! How do you not think that would be riveting? Especially if every new lens and camera took a similar picture of an equally linty/dirty office chair upholdstry. Riveting photography right there!

MasterWayne. I'm part of the team running around Photokina, shooting pics and conducting interviews. We're not taking part in any formal events but if you see and recognise one of us, as we race between meetings, please say hello.

One whole ounce lighter than the Canon 11-24. I have the original Sigma 12-24 and it is very rectilinear and pretty sharp at the wide end. Not so good at the long end, but I bought it for the 12mm and have no complaints. The second version was sharper, but not as linear (i.e. more distortion). It will be interesting to see how the "art" version performs. It might give the Canon 11-24 a run for its money at half the price.

you are right, but they do exist for Full Frame mirrorless. For the weight of the focal length you selected (Sigma 85mm) you would go to the most extreme 85 mm for mirrorless FE85/1.4 to be in same wieght category. That lens is seen as big, but it matches Zeiss Outs in terms of optical quality (according to DxO). In fact it seems to be the only lens that matches Zeiss Otus in optical performance.

If your point was that mirrorless lenses are large and cumbersome, then yeah, I got you! Otherwise, I'm mystified.

Ok, but let's get serious. The Sony lens weighs close to a kilogram, so I don't really see it as an example of a small lens.

Example: The Sony weighs significantly more than the DSLR lens Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G which, according to R. Cicala's Lens Rental measurements (whom I trust immensely more than DxO), is just as sharp.

I don't get all the complaints about the weight - if a lens the size of the 85 mm f/1.4 Art + a DSLR body is too much for you to carry around, I would say you need to work out a bit. Plus the IQ from these Art lenses makes it more than worth while: the 50 mm Art is just brutally great. I am more than willing to lug it around on 12+ hrs wedding shoots. Loving the 35 mm Art too and excited about the new 85 mm.

I am positive you can carry even larger eqipment if you want to, as long as it not too many other lenses and not to demanding environment and not too much other things you carry with you in your job or your vacation or whatever you use your camera for. But why carry unnessecary weight? I preferr better IQ with lower weight.

I love ultrawides, so I want to see photos from a high mp body and the 12-24 (and MTF numbers too). Flare resistance is very difficult with lenses this wide, and really excellent corner performance is extremely difficult). Hopefully this new 12-24 has better MTF than the original Sigma 12-24.

Beautiful and irresistible as all their Art lenses. OTOH I had hoped they would come up with some more exotic specs like the 18-35/1.8, such as a 85/1.4 IS or 11-24, or a built-in solution to add filter to the 12-24 (even if offered as an option accessory).

Good one. Still can't understand why sigma or tamron don't offer something like 10-20, 17-50/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 50-150/2-8, 70-200 lenses in sony e mount. Is it technical or something more fishy (like sony afraid of loosing sells of their overpriced lenses and make legal action about it or something)?

I asked Tamron awhile back, more specifically, my friend who works for Tamron, why there isn't more lenses developed for mirrorless cameras and the answer I got made some sense. As of right now, the most popular mirrorless lens that Tamron sells is still a fraction of a fraction in terms of sales to even the least popular slr lens. In terms of making money, the market just isn't there yet.

It might make sense for those savvy enough to make a choice between slr and mirrorless, but for the most part, people are still buying what their friend recommends or whichever company has the biggest advertising budget.

olivemoonstudios, if that was the case, why bother with prime lesnses them which already are there? i think they would earn enough juts by good (affordable) e zoom lenses.. tamron is not maybe major player here, but sigma definitely is.

Mr. Izo, alas, I have no idea since I'm just relaying the reply I got from tamron. Sigma has 3 lenses and tamron 1 for e mount that I know of (I haven't checked). I'm just assuming that these are a test to determine whether the market is worth it at the moment, which is seems with the lack of variety it isn't quite there yet. I would love to see some competition between all manufacturers because it'll just promote either more variety or better equipment for us consumers.

When SpaceX's Falcon 9 took to the skies like a UFO last Friday, photographer Jesse Watson was ready to capture the incredible sight in timelapse. His footage of the launch is far and away the most beautiful we've seen so far.

The Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art has been the talk of the portrait shooter town as of late, and for good reason since many testers have shown it to be the sharpest 85mm lens ever made. With that said, does it really live up to the hype? Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.